Snap Removal of a Cosmetic Talcum Powder Case to Federal Court Upheld Over Plaintiffs’ Challenge

On October 10, 2025, the Honorable Judge Nancy J. Rosentengel of the Southern District of Illinois upheld a defendant’s snap removal of a cosmetic talcum powder case to federal court by Foley Mansfield, PLLP. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which the court denied. The court’s opinion upholding the removal addresses 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and reinforces defendants’ ability to remove cases to federal court via snap removal, before an in-state defendant has been served with the lawsuit, highlighting the importance of quick case evaluation and decision-making.

On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging that one of the plaintiffs developed mesothelioma due to alleged asbestos exposure from cosmetic talcum power products. The plaintiffs brought state law claims of negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and conspiracy against eight defendants, one of which was alleged to be a citizen of Illinois. Foley Mansfield, on behalf of its client, removed the case to federal court on February 4, 2025, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, before any other defendants named in the case had been served. Later that day, two other defendants in the case were served. Plaintiffs sought remand, arguing that removal was procedurally defective because the other defendants had not joined or consented to the removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). The court’s opinion reinforces defendants’ ability to remove cases via snap removal, before any other party to the lawsuit has been served and highlights the importance of quick case evaluation and decision-making. The court found that no procedural defect existed, holding that consent to removal is only required from defendants “properly joined and served” at the time the removal is filed. The procedure for removal of civil actions is outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The statute provides that “a notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based…” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

In cases involving multiple defendants, “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Foley Mansfield’s removal was filed at 1:53 p.m., before any other defendant was served (one having been served at 2:00 p.m. and the next at 4:00 p.m.). Therefore, consent of other defendants was not required.

In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs attempted to rely on Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the rule’s method for calculating time in days or hours had no bearing on the sequence of service and removal in this context. However, the court found that there was no time to be computed and Rule 6(a) was not relevant to the discussion because defendant’s notice of removal was filed before any other defendant was served.

Only defendants served before a notice of removal is filed must join in or consent. It is imperative when removing a case via “snap removal” that a defendant take action immediately to remove the case. The court’s ruling affirms that snap removal, before service on any other defendant, remains a viable strategy to change the venue of a case to federal court. When evaluating a case and determining whether a removal to federal court would further defense strategy, defendants should consider amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 702 and its positive effect on their ability to challenge unreliable expert testimony and the widened jury pool assigned to cases in federal court.

Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten is a Partner in Foley Mansfield’s Minneapolis office, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, and the chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group. She devotes her practice to defending product manufacturers, suppliers, and installers in high-risk product liability and toxic tort cases. She can be reached at ebrotten@foleymansfield.com.

Jason Mohr is a Partner of Foley Mansfield’s Minneapolis office who focuses his practice in the area of toxic tort and mass tort litigation. In addition to providing local defense counsel services, he has experience as national coordinating counsel for manufacturing clients in asbestos litigation. He can be reached at jmohr@foleymansfield.com.

Haley Combs is a Partner in the St. Louis office of Foley Mansfield who focuses her practice in the defense of products liability and toxic tort litigation. She has broad client experience across Illinois and Missouri and works with each client to develop a litigation strategy appropriate for their circumstances and goals. She can be reached at hcombs@foleymansfield.com.  

Kyle Heim is an Associate in the Minneapolis office of Foley Mansfield. He defends product manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in product liability and toxic tort claims in Minnesota and North Dakota. He can be reached at kheim@foleymansfield.com.